Share
- In her supporting affidavit in the suit filed by Ilham Baru and Ilham Tower on Sept 9 against their company secretary, Rebecca Lee Ewe Ai, as the defendant, Na'imah said that the MACC does not have sufficient evidence in the forfeiture case against the tower, as evidenced by its order to compel the company secretary to produce more documents.
KUALA LUMPUR (Sept 18): Toh Puan Na’imah Abdul Khalid (pictured) has hit back at the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) for forcing Ilham Baru Sdn Bhd and Ilham Tower Sdn Bhd’s company secretary to hand over documents. She said this is an unfair tactic against her and the companies, calling it a ‘fishing expedition’ to find evidence to support the MACC’s forfeiture case against the Kuala Lumpur centrally-located building the companies manage, Ilham Tower.
The building, owned by former finance minister the late Tun Daim Zainuddin and his widow Na’imah, is the subject of two forfeiture proceedings by the MACC, which she is challenging.
In her supporting affidavit in the suit filed by Ilham Baru and Ilham Tower on Sept 9 against their company secretary, Rebecca Lee Ewe Ai, as the defendant, Na'imah said that the MACC does not have sufficient evidence in the forfeiture case against the tower, as evidenced by its order to compel the company secretary to produce more documents.
She alluded to the fact that the MACC had filed the forfeiture application without proper evidence and is only now seeking such evidence.
“I further state that the burden of proof borne by the MACC is to ensure that all investigations relating to the forfeiture application are completed before filing the application.
“A forfeiture under Section 56 of the Anti-Money Laundering Act 2001 (AMLA) is a process of forfeiture without any criminal charge or conviction.
“Therefore, since the forfeiture application has already been filed, it clearly shows—and it is a reasonable assumption—that the MACC already has sufficient evidence.
“It is the duty of the MACC and the public prosecutor to carry out due diligence, such as conducting searches, gathering information and documents for their internal consideration.
“However, based on the fact that the order to produce documents has been served on the defendant (Lee), it clearly shows that the MACC does not have sufficient evidence.”
Both companies, with Na’imah as a director, filed the suit through Messrs Zharif Nizamuddin on Sept 9 and named Lee as the defendant.
They are seeking a permanent injunction to bar Lee—either on her own, through her employees or agents—from handing over any documents that cannot be publicly accessed or are not in the Companies Commission of Malaysia (SSM) records but are privately kept, and from sharing them with the MACC pursuant to Section 30(1)(b) of the MACC Act, without the express or written approval of the plaintiffs.
On Wednesday, High Court judge Wan Muhammad Amin Wan Yahya granted an ad-interim injunction until Oct 9, 2025—or until further orders of the court—to restrain the company secretary, whether personally and/or through company employees, agents, representatives, or any other party, from releasing any documents not accessible to the general public and/or accessible through the SSM system that are in Lee’s possession, and/or records to any third party without the plaintiffs’ consent.
The court further ordered that the cause papers be served on the MACC to allow the plaintiffs an opportunity to be heard before the court on the two companies’ applications.
Na’imah reiterated that she had to make this application because Lee, as company secretary, should be restrained and does not have any power to share documents that are not publicly accessible to anyone, including the MACC.
She stated that Section 351 of the Companies Act 2016 allows the court to hear these originating summons and that it has jurisdiction to grant the orders sought by the two companies.
In addition to the two forfeitures, the MACC has also applied for a prohibitory order against Na’imah or her agents in relation to assets in the UK, the British crown dependency of Jersey, and Singapore.
The UK assets are worth £132 million (RM755.1 million), while those in Jersey are said to be worth US$157.5 million (RM667.0 million) and £85 million (RM490.7 million). There is also a request to freeze about RM544 million worth of assets in Singapore.
As Penang girds itself towards the last lap of its Penang2030 vision, check out how the residential segment is keeping pace in EdgeProp’s special report: PENANG Investing Towards 2030.
